16 July, 2010

Science in the Bible....

There have been claims that the bible is filled with scientific facts, and creationists have the tendency to USE this as some sort of evidence that the bible is true. I will list off a few commonly used "scientific and biblical" claims and then explain how they are wrong.

The first fun one is the claim that Leviticus 17:11 says "For the life of the flesh is in the blood" and of course this is used to say that the bible knew of this scientific tidbit way before science discovered it. Now this isn't a big revelation. Where would one get the idea that life is in the blood? All it takes is for someone to cut someone else open, watch all the blood come out, and then he dies. Do these creationists honestly think that no one saw anyone bleed to death 2000 years ago? Additionally, that statement is essentially false. Life isn't in the blood. Life is in the brian. Once the brain dies, the life is gone. And it can die for any number of reasons, many of them not relating to blood loss.

Another claim is from Job 26:7 "He spreads out the northern [skies] over empty space; he suspends the earth over nothing," meaning that the earth is floating in space. However.. that's not what "suspended" means. Suspended implies that there is something holding it UP, of course over "nothing." This also implies that UP is an objective direction. The earth is not suspended, it is in orbit around the sun. In order to be in orbit, the Earth has to essentially be falling towards the sun but with enough orbital velocity in one direction so that it never really gets any closer. This is the definition of being in orbit. Again, it is not suspended at all, much less over "nothing."

A very humorous one, in my opinion, is when creationists try to defend the idea that the bible talks about radio waves too. In Job 38:35, it says "Can you send lightnings, that they may go and say unto you, Here we are?" So here is their logic- lightning is light. Light travels, well, at the speed of light. Radiowaves also travel at the speed of light because radiowaves are also parts of the electromagnetic spectrum. Because of this, the radiowaves can send signals to speakers which make them produce sounds and voices. I'm not making this up, I got this from, inplainsite.org . This is actually the conclusion they draw from a passage like this. So what do you think is more likely? That 2500 years ago, the writers of Job decided to talk about radio waves? Or that they were just talking about a mythical event, similar to the global flood, noahs ark etc, that just happened to involve talking lightning?

Another interesting one is Genesis 1 verses 1 and 3. "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth. And the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters." Now I know what you're thinking. I would love to hear them defend this one too. So here is their attempt: They attribute TIME to "in the beginning," they attribute ENERGY and POWER to "god" and "created," they attribute SPACE to "heaven" and MATTER to "earth." They also attribute MOTION to "the spirit of god moved upon the face of the waters." So they say that in the beginning, a bunch of energy and power gave arise to matter and space and it moved,.. probably implying an expansion. This isn't scientific. This isn't even accurate. This is a missunderstanding based off of a vague bible verse with a limited scientific vocabulary. Because time is a constant, the term "beginning" isn't really used as a literal term in the scientific community while discussing the big bang. The scientific community knows close to jack rabbit squat about the singularity, and when the "spirit of god MOVED upon the face of the WATERS"... this is really the farthest thing FROM anything relating to the cosmological "beginning" of the universe.. because of course, there was no water then, and Earth formed billions of years after the big bang, while genesis clearly implies that earth was created first, strangely enough BEFORE the sun.. So if genesis is so scientific and accurate.. how come it doesn't answer ANY questions that we have about the origin of the universe?

That is just four basic points that creationists love to use when it comes to science in the bible. Vague bible verses that can be applied to a wide variety of concepts and ideas. The bible isn't preaching science, nor does did it EVER have a head start on scientific progress. It's a book of stories whose truthfullness is left solely to the interpreter.

22 June, 2010

Full Description of Christian Challenge

The other condition, that I thought needed to go without saying, but I'll say it anyway- you can't say "God did it." Or say “They’re metaphorical” when each case clearly indicates a physical creature/object of supernatural being.

These passages are all from the KJV, other versions of the Bible have translated certain beasts into more reasonable animals- AGAINST their original wording, context and translation.

Satyr - Isaiah 13.21 "But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there; and their houses shall be full of doleful creatures; and owls shall dwell there, and satyrs shall dance there."
Original Word - śâ‛ı̂yr – Which can mean; shaggy; as noun, a he goat; by analogy a faun: - devil, goat, hairy, kid, rough, satyr
According to the commentaries of Wesley, Barnes, Clarke, Gill, Jameson, Fausset an Brown agree that this word is referring to the Demi-God/Devil of which is half man, half goat.

Firey Serpents - Numbers 21.6 "And the Lord sent fiery serpents among the people, and they bit the people; and much of Israel died."
Original Words - śârâph nâchâsh – śârâph coming from the word śâraph which means to burn, which is also applied to the highest class of angels- seraphim, the burning ones. However, śârâph could also mean poisonous. Which could either imply a creature of mystical origin, or a mistranslation. Your choice.

Cockatrice - Jeremiah 8.17 "For, behold, I will sent serpents, cockatrices, among you, which will not be charmed, and they shall bite you, saith the Lord."
Original Word - tsepha‛ tsiph‛ônı̂y – From an unused root meaning to extrude; a viper (as thrusting out the tongue, that is, hissing): - adder, cockatrice – It’s interesting to note that out of occurrences of this word being used in the bible, only once has it been used to refer to an Adder, the other 4 times, “Cockatrice”. The commentary of Jameson, Fausset and Brown refer to this creature as both a cockatrice and a basilisk.

Unicorns - Isaiah 34.7 "And the Unicorns shall come down with them, and the bullocks with the bulls, and their land shall be soaked with blood, and their dust made fat with fatness."
Original Word - rêm – This word has been used a total of 9 times in the entirety of the Bible, all times being translated as unicorn. However, all of the commentaries I have actually debate this translation, saying it might’ve been confused with local rams- or even rhinoceros.

Dragons - Mentioned 16 different times, just a one example. Nehemia 2.13 “And I went out by night by the gate of the valley, even before the dragon well, and to the dung port, and viewed the walls of Jerusalem, which were broken down, and the gates thereof were consumed with fire.”
Original Word - drakōn- Probably from an alternate form of derkomai (to look); a fabulous kind of serpent (perhaps as supposed to fascinate): - dragon. Interesting to note that this isn’t the only word used for “Dragon”- another one is “Tanniyn”, which refers to dragons-of-people (not people-dragons, but dragon-like in personality/royalty), so there is definitely a distinction between the two, that this is a physical dragon creature.

Leviathan - Job 41.1 "Canst thou draw out leviathan with an hook? or his tongue with a cord which thou lettest down?"
Original Word - livyâthân - a wreathed animal, that is, a serpent (especially the crocodile or some other large sea monster); figuratively the constellation of the dragon; also as a symbol of Babylon: - leviathan, mourning.
All of the commentaries I have debate on what the Leviathan actually is, some try and reason that it is a crocodile from the Nile, or perhaps a whale- but no-one is really sure. An interesting commentary on this creature is from Barnes.

The rest don’t need etymology lessons;

Talking Snakes - Genesis 3.1 "Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?"

Talking Donkeys - Numbers 22.28 "And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee, that thou hast smitten me these three times?"

Talking Trees - Judges 9:9 "But the olive tree said unto them, Should I leave my fatness, wherewith by me they honour God and man, and go to be promoted over the trees?"

Half-Human, Half Angels (Nephilim, or Giants) Genesis 6.4 - "There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

Animated Objects (In this case, an animated, flaming sword) - Genesis 3.24 - "So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life."

And who says I don’t know The Bible?

26 April, 2010

Religion, The Religious and Movies

Now I know there're a lot of movies out there about the religious zeolot warning everyone of the impending doom- then turning out to be right and fighting off the demonic forces. They usually make for good action/fantasy films (but not always).

But in regards to those that seek to be more realistic, from what I've seen is that all those who turn to their faith for salvation are usually the first to go.
I think for example 2012 makes a good example of this;
There's a part where one of the characters asks where the president is and his secretary says "He's praying, and considering the circumstances- it's not a bad idea"- well obviously it was because he and all those in St. Peter's Square ended up killed at the end of it while the ones who tried to help him survived.

Now christians could say- yes they died, but they're in heaven now, so it's better than surviving. To that- I say "Fuck off" because you don't know, no-one knows, so quit trying to claim land that has no ground.

And even in some films which are obviously in the genre of sci-fi- the religious end up as dead as anyone else.

The point being is that anyone who is realistic knows that the religious are living in a fantasy world. If a film came out about
talking animals- it'd be a kid's film.
A great flood- it'd be a disaster film
Wars- an epic. An epic as defined as of "heroic, majestic and/or unusually great proportions"
People travelling by firery whirlwind to castles in the sky- a fantasy
Fights between warriors over a girl - a romance
Trying to win her by presenting her father with foreskins- a rom-com.

The list goes on, but the general point is that the core of the Bible is pure fucking Fantasy and if it were even POSSIBLE to portray it as any other way, the movie-makers in the world would've jumped on that like horny priests to a blind choir boy.

Sooo, when you next what a film which involved angels and demons- look at the genre, I'm willing to be "Fantasy" will be there.
Btw, I love the film The Prince of Egypt *thumbs up*

Trolling with Logic, RyuOni1989.

20 April, 2010

Creation Scientists vs Real Scientists

Now, I know most people already know this, but this one goes out to the ones out there who are complete creationists and think there is actually such a thing as "creation science."

So what is science? Science is the system of acquiring knowledge through testing, repeating, and observing the natural world. This is done through the scientific method. Now, the scientific method is this- you find something odd in nature and you gather some evidence for figuring out what it is and what's causing it. After going into the field and gathering evidence and doing some research, you come to a conclusion. You then submit your conclusion to peer review. This is the part of the scientific method where other scientists ruthlessly try to rip apart your discovery. They try to prove it wrong, falsify it, find something wrong with it, and destroy it. If just one point fails in your discovery, you are sent out and you have to spend more time perfecting it. After a long process, the discovery is finally bulletproof and gets published, at least, until it is falsified later if at all.

That is how science works. That is real science and any scientist who goes through that process would be considered a real scientist. Additionally, real scientists will humbly admit that they don't know very much- which is what drives them to figure things out. They start with nothing. No presuppositions. You can't have a presupposition and be a real scientist- because if start out with a presupposition, that is called bias, and it is highly frowned upon in the scientific community.

So what is the difference between real scientists and creation scientists? Creation scientists base all of their ideas on the assumption that the bible is true by default. That is the main difference. That is what makes them bad scientists. A good scientist draws a conclusion from the evidence, and a bad scientist starts with a conclusion and tries to find evidence to support it.

If creation science were a valid field of study, it would just be called science just like every other scientific field of study. But the distinction is clear and I cannot stress the distinction enough: Creation scientists base everything on the PRESUPPOSITION that the bible is true. How would one expect to make any progress in knowledge if they already claim to know the truth from the beginning?

Which brings me to my second point- creation science does not, and can not make any progress in knowledge like real science can. All creation science is, is an amature lawyer trying to defend a serial killer who still has his victims blood stains on his hands. Creation scientists don't try to find anything new- they try to fish up evidence to support their presupposed claim. You don't see creation scientists making discoveries, do you? How about a creation scientist who finds the cure for a sickness?

Of course you can say that Francis Collins may be religious and yet he was one of the people apart of the human genome process. But does he deny evolution and say that the earth is 6000 years old like creation scientists? No. He is a religious scientist, not a creation scientist. Perhaps you may say that Carl Linnaeus was a creationist and he is known as the "father of taxonomy" in which taxonomy is still widely used today by every biologist in the field. But of course he was a creationist- we lived over a century before Darwin and no other theory of the diversity of life was even proposed. Do you really think he would still be a full blown creationist had he heard about evolution during his lifetime? Again, he was not a creation scientist because he was not looking for ways to try to prove a presupposition.

So for all you creationists who get upset whenever refers to REAL scientists in comparison to CREATION scientist, it's not because we don't like you, it's not because we are sinners, it's not because we are homosexually active animals raping Satan worshippers- it's because there is a real difference between creation scientists and real scientists just like there is a real difference between evolution and the origin of life.

However I'm sure that analogy just confused you more because the CREATION scientists that you listen to actually tell you that evolution and the origin of life are the same thing, which of course they're not. Evolution explains the diversity of life, period. Origin of life is just that, the origin of life. Evolution STARTS after the origin of life.

But I digress. Now you know the difference between real scientists and creation scientists. Keep this in mind whenever you hear the phrase "creation scientist" thrown around too loosely.

19 April, 2010

Had a Visit

Yes indeed I had a visit from the nice people at my local church, St Stephen’s Parish church. After pushing a leaflet through the door they knocked and I opened it  be greeted by a man and his wife spreading the word about our local church.

He asks me if I know of a man called Jesus and I reply yes I know of this Jesus character. He seemed happy and as if reading from a script asked me

“How long do you want to live?”

Now this to me is a simple one to answer , I would like to live for as long as possible but not forever. This seemed to puzzle my visitor as he expected the standard answer of eternity.

Now why do I not want to live forever? because that is simply put my idea of Hell. Our mortality defines us knowing that one day all this will be over makes it so much more precious. For billions of years atoms in the universe have swirled around and through an incredible series of astonishing events have come together for but a tiny fraction on the cosmic scale come together to make me. As Carl Sagan put it “We are a way the cosmos can know itself”.

Eternal life would rob our existence of such great things as discovery and what would you do after the first thousand or so millennia ? I have met so many people on this journey of life that I will never see again but when you think that each one of us is unique and only here for the blink of an eye on that cosmic scale, it makes this thing we call life truly worth living.

18 April, 2010

Is God Just?

(This is the transcript for my next video, audio already recorded- video in the works.)

So, Is god really all that just?

I'll look at a few instances;

In Genesis 19-26 Lot's wife looked back whilst fleeing Sodom towards Zoah after being told not to look behind in the previous verse of Genesis 19:17 by the two angels and because of that- was turned into a pillar of salt.
Going by the numerous commentaries I have- for the most part they seem to think Lot's wife (apparently named with Adith or Irith) looked back because she longed for her left behind posessions.
However, the true reason was never actually stated and so it is up to pure speculation.
Focussing on one particular commentary, that of Gill, they seem to give a relatively unbiased view.
They say that according to the Targums of Jonothan and Jerusalem, she was a native of sodom.
So try to Imagine living in a place all your life,
then one night being told to flee to another city because yours was going to be destroyed in a hail of fire and brimstone from a god that you perhaps didn't fully believe in by two guys who claim to be angels but did nothing to prove it.
Imagine the sadness in her to leave everything she treasured- not just in possessions, but in friends and family too.
But there is another possibility- perhaps she looked back to check to make sure her daughters were behind her and weren't lagging behind and had become consumed in the firey hail? A purely innocent and well-to-do action.
Was it truly just to smite her on the spot into a pillar of salt?

My next example is in Second Samuel, Chapter 6 Verses 6 through 7. Later paraphrased in First Chronicles chapter 12, verse 9 through 10.
So at this point in the Bible,
Everyone's singing, dancing, playing music and having a good time.
At some point, the Oxen holding the prized Ark of the Covenant stumbled.
So Uzza, being the decent guy he was, wanting to save his God's holy word- held out his hand to stop the Ark from falling.
For his trouble- killed on the spot.
So basically, don't help your Yahweh out. He won't thank you for it, he'll just kill you.
All of the commentaries I've read have basically said that "A good intention does not justify a negative act".
Okay then, if no man is allowed to touch the covenant of the ark- how the fuck is ANYONE supposed to save the bastard when it was falling?
So it's basically a choice between, save it and get killed- or let it drop and be smashed and- I can safely assume, be killed for not saving it.
Yeah, okay, what-the-fuck-ever.

And also, are Yahweh and Satan always enemies?
Not from the account of Job.
In that account it clearly states that Satan is able to freely enter heaven at will and have a little chit-chats with God.
In this particular instance, Satan makes a bet that Yahweh's little pet (Job) would forsake him if Yahweh took away everything Job had.
Instead of dismissing this, and taking the higher route- God himself directly gives Satan the power to go down and kill all of Job's Family, Slaves and Cattle.
Now despite the fact that this insinuates that Satan can't do jack shit against people, this clearly shows that God GAVE his perceived enemy the ability to do something against his most prized worshipper.
So, after being given the power to do so, Satan goes down and using the power of god- has himself a mini killing spree.
Moral of the story;
if God makes a bet- make sure you get naked, shave your head and pretend to be a baby afterwards. ...Freud would have a field day.

And is the price of apostacy death, solely in Islam? Obviously not- there're many instances in the Bible in which God kills those who turn from him.
And he gives specific instructions to followers to KILL Apostates in Ezekiel 3-18;
When I say unto the wicked,
Thou shalt surely die;
and thou givest him not warning,
nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life;
the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity;
but his blood will I require at thine hand.

And if you're born to parents who blaspheme, christian or not, you shouldn't be alive according to Second Samuel 12-14;
because by this deed
thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the LORD to blaspheme,
the child also that is born unto thee shall surely die.

And before I get the typical response-
yes, I do know that there're a lot of verses in the bible which tell about prophets preaching the Love of God-
but to be honest.
Unless you're born to meet the criteria of what can only be considered a Christian version of the Nazi's Arian race- then you shouldn't even be alive by Biblical standards.

Zig Heil.

So again, I ask you- is God really all that Just?

14 April, 2010

Setting Traps

Yes, I will admit that setting traps for people is a twisted thing to do because it sets them up for public failure against their choosing. However, perhaps framing would be good if the person being trapped had a secret which needed desperately to be exposed- a secret which many people trust. There is a large handful of people who already know this secret, but trapping this person would get the secret out much more, especially if it spreads through youtube like wildfire.

Perhaps we already know how stupid a particular creationist site is. We know how desperate creationists are getting now but we want to show the world just how desperate they are- which could possibly be MUCH more desperate. They could be hiding things and lying even more than we already know they do.

Stay Tuned